How will the PR voting ststem work for the pres election?

ArtSmart

Anyone, with real knowledge know exactly how it works?

what the elimination cut-off is? Obviously there will be no elected surplus, so it'll all be eliminated candidates only.

But will it be as simple as that?

Anyone with actual PR voting procedure knowledge out there?

krd

The cut-off is the quota.

Any single candidate who gets 50% of the first preferences + 1 single vote, reaches the quota, and is deemed elected.

It's not likely anyone will hit the quota on first prefs.

Presidential Elections Act, 1993

50.—(1) The presidential returning officer, on receipt from every local returning officer of a notification under section 49 , shall ascertain from the notifications the total number of votes credited to each candidate and the total number of valid ballot papers.

(2) The presidential returning officer shall then divide the total number of valid ballot papers by 2 and the result increased by one, any fractional remainder being disregarded, shall be the number of votes sufficient to secure the election of a candidate. This number is referred to in this Act as “the quota”.

(3) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to a candidate is equal to or greater than the quota, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

(4) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to some one continuing candidate exceeds the total of all the votes credited to the other continuing candidates, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

ArtSmart

Thanks KRd, but that doesn't really clarify the transfer situation.

therecklessone

ArtSmart wrote: »

Thanks KRd, but that doesn't really clarify the transfer situation.

I don't see the confusion.

Every candidate's 1st preferences are counted, if one achieves 50%+1 they are deemed elected otherwise candidates are eliminated in turn as per any normal election.

Consider the Presidential election as similar to a by-election, one seat to be filled but numerous candidates.

ArmaniJeanss

Its identical to a general election voting system, except that there is only one seat.

Until such time as 1 candidate reaches 50% (+1 vote) on a count the following happens....

The lowest scoring candidate* is eliminated on each count, any transferable votes are transferred to remaining candidates.

If only 2 candidates remain and neither has 50% then the current leader is the winner.


* 2 candidates could be eliminated at the same time if the second lowest couldn't improve their position even with 100% of transfers from the lowest candidate.

krd

ArtSmart wrote: »

Thanks KRd, but that doesn't really clarify the transfer situation.

Transfers are a little more tricky.

I think it's a horrible system

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf


I'm sure how the transfers will be handled for the presidential election.

ArmaniJeanss

A question myself re transfers.

Suppose I vote 1 Mitchell, 2 Davis, 3 Higgins.

Mitchell is eliminated after Davis. Does my Mitchell vote transfer to Higgins or does it die because Davis is already eliminated?

therecklessone

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A question myself re transfers.

Suppose I vote 1 Mitchell, 2 Davis, 3 Higgins.

Mitchell is eliminated after Davis. Does my Mitchell vote transfer to Higgins or does it die because Davis is already eliminated?

It transfers to Higgins, your vote will always transfer to the next remaining candidate based on your indicated preferences,

ArtSmart

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A question myself re transfers.

Suppose I vote 1 Mitchell, 2 Davis, 3 Higgins.

Mitchell is eliminated after Davis. Does my Mitchell vote transfer to Higgins or does it die because Davis is already eliminated?

exactly my issue. in a GE some preference votes become inert, ie they die, because of that very fact.

at best second preference might survive, but i have a funny feeling there are other aspects to a pres election which might effect that, and that it doesnt follow the same process as a by-election.

therecklessone

krd wrote: »

Transfers are a little more tricky.

I think it's a horrible system

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf


I'm sure how the transfers will be handled for the presidential election.

The difficulty in physically transferring papers is only an issue when distributing a surplus, and then only if the surplus is to be distributed after the 2nd or subsequent count.

In the Presidential election the only transfer that will occur will be from eliminated candidates, in which case their entire vote is reassessed and physically distributed in full to the next available preference, or set aside as non-transferable should no further available preference be available.

FloatingVoter

Lets assum you vote

1. Dana

2. Norris

3. Davis.

The odds are your votes will end up with Davis until she is eliminated. Then the vote is exhausted.

If you vote

1. Norris

2. Higgins

3. Gallagher

The odds are your votes will end up with Higgins / Gallagher.

Dead votes are votes that are not cast. Both the above examples are valid expressions of your opinion.

ArtSmart

therecklessone wrote: »

It transfers to Higgins, your vote will always transfer to the next remaining candidate based on your indicated preferences,

really? are you saying each transfer continues right up to the 6th pref, until one candidate reaches the quota (or has the highest votes)

I'm not sure 'bout that.

do you have any info on it?

therecklessone

ArtSmart wrote: »

exactly my issue. in a GE some preference votes become inert, ie they die, because of that very fact.

at best second preference might survive, but i have a funny feeling there are other aspects to a pres election which might effect that, and that it doesnt follow the same process as a by-election.

That is incorrect I'm afraid.

From the link provided above:

Overview of the surplus distribution procedure
An elected candidate's surplus is distributed based on the next available preferences for continuing candidates (i.e. candidates not elected or excluded) contained in the last parcel of votes that brought the elected candidate over the quota.

All transferable votes of the excluded candidate(s) are distributed to
candidates still in the running in accordance with the next available preferences shown on them. All non-transferable papers of the excluded candidate(s) are set aside and designated as “non-transferable papers not effective” because they are no longer credited to any candidate.

In both cases the next-available preference is used, so if your number 2 preference has already been excluded they will use your number 3 preference.

therecklessone

ArtSmart wrote: »

really? are you saying each transfer continues right up to the 6th pref, until one candidate reaches the quota (or has the highest votes)

I'm not sure 'bout that.

do you have any info on it?

The link was provided by another poster above:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf

ArtSmart

therecklessone wrote: »

T
In the Presidential election the only transfer that will occur will be from eliminated candidates, in which case their entire vote is reassessed and physically distributed in full to the next available preference, or set aside as non-transferable should no further available preference be available.

so, the key to who wins will be who is eliminated from the race first?

therecklessone

ArtSmart wrote: »

so, the key to who wins will be who is eliminated from the race first?

Just as in any other election, transfers may prove crucial this time around. Witness the 1990 election when Brian Lenihan Snr garnered 44% of the 1st preferences but received a very low transfer from Fine Gael's Austin Currie:

http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=1990P&cons=194

ArtSmart

yes, so if SG transfer friendly candidates are eliminated first, he might reach the quota - and it'll all be over bar the look of disbelief in half the country's eyes. .

nesf

ArtSmart wrote: »

yes, so if SG transfer friendly candidates are eliminated first, he might reach the quota - and it'll all be over bar the look of disbelief in half the country's eyes. .

Doesn't really matter. E.g. you'll have two groups of votes, the ones with Gallagher or Higgins No. 1 and the rest. Of the rest split them into transferring eventually to Higgins or Gallagher before the other candidate. Either Gallagher has enough for the quota or Higgins does, it is impossible for both of them to have it. So it makes no difference who gets eliminated first.


Now, where it matters is in a multi-seat race where you might have enough votes theoretically transferring to you for you to get a seat but you can get eliminated before that can happen. Thus why it's so important to carefully manage the first preference vote for parties to try and keep both of their candidates above the line below which people will get eliminated before the seats are filled.

In this case with Higgins and Gallagher very likely to be 1st and 2nd in some order by a large margin, it matters little what order candidates are eliminated in.

ArtSmart

But if one reaches the quota first, surely that's it?

nesf

ArtSmart wrote: »

But if one reaches the quota first, surely that's it?

Yes, but only one of them can ever reach the quota! You don't have multiple paths to victory in a one seat race, from the moments votes are cast there is only one possible outcome.

ArtSmart

nesf wrote: »

Yes, but only one of them can ever reach the quota! You don't have multiple paths to victory in a one seat race, from the moments votes are cast there is only one possible outcome.

colour me dumb, but i'm still not getting this.

if SG transfer friendly candidates are eliminated first wont that mean those votes will be counted and given to SG?

and if he reaches the quota, isnt that the end.

even if the other candidates, like say Norris are still in the race and are likely to trans to MDH it will be too late. so even if all the votes were counted and MD had more transfers, it makes no odds.

Because SG reached the quota first.

No?

So therefore WHO is eliminated first is of vital importance, ie SG friendly or MD friendly

No?

blubloblu

Considering the entire country is essentially one constituency, does that mean they have to wait for the exact numbers of votes from each count centre before moving to the next round? Must take ages.

ArmaniJeanss

ArtSmart wrote: »

colour me dumb, but i'm still not getting this.

It's not mathematically possible for one candidate to reach 50%+1 and for another candidate to have also been able to reach 50%+1 if eliminations had happened in a different order.

Its one of those things you either 'get' instinctively or else unfortunately you have to write it all down to prove it to yourself with examples

nesf

ArtSmart wrote: »

colour me dumb, but i'm still not getting this.

if SG transfer friendly candidates are eliminated first wont that mean those votes will be counted and given to SG?

and if he reaches the quota, isnt that the end.

even if the other candidates, like say Norris are still in the race and are likely to trans to MDH it will be too late. so even if all the votes were counted and MD had more transfers, it makes no odds.

Because SG reached the quota first.

No?

So therefore WHO is eliminated first is of vital importance, ie SG friendly or MD friendly

No?

This of it this way.

We've an election and 10 people vote. Say there are four candidates A, B, C and D for simplicity.

A gets 3
B gets 3
C gets 2
D gets 2

Now say both of C's votes give A a preference and one of D's does. It doesn't matter which order C and D are eliminated, the only possible outcome is A being elected.

See what I mean?

ArtSmart

nesf wrote: »

This of it this way.

We've an election and 10 people vote. Say there are four candidates A, B, C and D for simplicity.

A gets 3
B gets 3
C gets 2
D gets 2

Now say both of C's votes give A a preference and one of D's does. It doesn't matter which order C and D are eliminated, the only possible outcome is A being elected.

See what I mean?

well, it's E and F i'm worried about.

if E and F and G go out together or in different orders it doesnt matter. what matters is where their transfers go.

so if their transfers go. If they go the SG (A) and he reaches the quota, the the transfers of C (MMcG) and D (Norris) are useless. it's all over. because A has reached the quota.

in this instance, Dana and Davis are more likely to trans to SG, with Mitchell about 70/30 in MD's favour.

this might be enough to put SG into quota territory.

So to me, it does matter who gets eliminated first.

Especially is MMcG ('C') is next, as his trans are anybody's guess. whereas Norris would favour MD


ETA. actually looking at the latest poll, MMcG will be last to be eliminated. This bodes well for Michael because mitchell and norris transfers will favour him and so to will McGuinness's . Ironically it will be the MMcG transfers which will decide our next president (historically ironic)

nesf

ArtSmart wrote: »

well, it's E and F i'm worried about.

if E and F and G go out together or in different orders it doesnt matter. what matters is where their transfers go.

so if their transfers go. If they go the SG (A) and he reaches the quota, the the transfers of C (MMcG) and D (Norris) are useless. it's all over. because A has reached the quota.

in this instance, Dana and Davis are more likely to trans to SG, with Mitchell about 70/30 in MD's favour.

this might be enough to put SG into quota territory.

So to me, it does matter who gets eliminated first.

Especially is MMcG ('C') is next, as his trans are anybody's guess. whereas Norris would favour MD


ETA. actually looking at the latest poll, MMcG will be last to be eliminated. This bodes well for Michael because mitchell and norris transfers will favour him and so to will McGuinness's . Ironically it will be the MMcG transfers which will decide our next president (historically ironic)

Um, look, it's mathematically impossible for two candidates to be over the quota in a presidential election. So it matters not a bit what order candidates are eliminated, it cannot change the final result (so long as the "winner" doesn't have a very low amount of first preferences and ends up being eliminated early, which actually is a problem in our system!).

ArtSmart

nesf wrote: »

Um, look, it's mathematically impossible for two candidates to be over the quota in a presidential election. So it matters not a bit what order candidates are eliminated, it cannot change the final result .

Ok. if all we were talking about were 1st pref votes what you say is true.

but we're not.

isn't the quota the total amount valid votes made divided by 2 (+ 1) = 50%? (+1)

So on that basis of first preferences alone, only one can win no matter when the vote is counted, as you say.

But with PR, that isnt the case. In that 2, 3rd, 4th etc preferences come into play.

and they are only counted as a candidate is eliminated.

I think that is where we're getting crossed wired.

either that, or I've lost it. finally.



50.—(1) The presidential returning officer, on receipt from every local returning officer of a notification under section 49 , shall ascertain from the notifications the total number of votes credited to each candidate and the total number of valid ballot papers.

(2) The presidential returning officer shall then divide the total number of valid ballot papers by 2 and the result increased by one, any fractional remainder being disregarded, shall be the number of votes sufficient to secure the election of a candidate. This number is referred to in this Act as “the quota”.

(3) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to a candidate is equal to or greater than the quota, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

(4) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to some one continuing candidate exceeds the total of all the votes credited to the other continuing candidates, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

Eliot Rosewater

ArtSmart wrote: »

But with PR, that isnt the case. In that 2, 3rd, 4th etc preferences come into play.

Yes, but when someone's 2nd preference is considered their first preference is thrown out. If there are 1000 votes cast there will never be more than 1000 votes in the system: they can't magically appear. If the quota is 501 it is only possible for one candidate to achieve this because there are never more than a 1000 votes!

If you can't see it then you should outline a scenario using candidates A, B, C and D where you think the order of elimination matters.

wow sierra

blubloblu wrote: »

Considering the entire country is essentially one constituency, does that mean they have to wait for the exact numbers of votes from each count centre before moving to the next round? Must take ages.

Yeah I imagine that will have to be the case - so a lot of sitting around wainting for the results of each count around the country, so the pace will be set by the slowest - no wonder they are saying it will take two days:(:(

Jimoslimos

Is it not highly unlikely that any candidate will reach the magical 50+% quota since all voters won't put down a full preference list on their ballot papers?

ArmaniJeanss

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Is it not highly unlikely that any candidate will reach the magical 50+% quota since all voters won't put down a full preference list on their ballot papers?

Nah, quota is about 99% likely to be reached in this election. People are clued in on voting down the list.

Coillte_Bhoy

ArtSmart wrote: »

But if one reaches the quota first, surely that's it?

Yes, thats it in a nutshell.

Zubeneschamali

There is no random element in a Presidential election, the only votes which disappear between counts are the votes of people who don't fill out lower preferences.

You can see how it went in 1997 here. McAleese got well above the quota on transfers. Mary Robinson actually passed Brian Lenihan (Senior) on transfers back in 1990, but she was only 5% behind on the first count.

If Gallagher polls 15% ahead of the field on the first count, he'll win.

Scuba Ste

ArtSmart wrote: »

Ok. if all we were talking about were 1st pref votes what you say is true.

but we're not.

isn't the quota the total amount valid votes made divided by 2 (+ 1) = 50%? (+1)

So on that basis of first preferences alone, only one can win no matter when the vote is counted, as you say.

But with PR, that isnt the case. In that 2, 3rd, 4th etc preferences come into play.

and they are only counted as a candidate is eliminated.

I think that is where we're getting crossed wired.

either that, or I've lost it. finally.



50.—(1) The presidential returning officer, on receipt from every local returning officer of a notification under section 49 , shall ascertain from the notifications the total number of votes credited to each candidate and the total number of valid ballot papers.

(2) The presidential returning officer shall then divide the total number of valid ballot papers by 2 and the result increased by one, any fractional remainder being disregarded, shall be the number of votes sufficient to secure the election of a candidate. This number is referred to in this Act as “the quota”.

(3) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to a candidate is equal to or greater than the quota, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

(4) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to some one continuing candidate exceeds the total of all the votes credited to the other continuing candidates, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

Firstly, the Presidential election is not a PR system because there is only one winner. PR and STV are not the same, they are two distinct parts of the Irish system. Presidential elections and by-elections are more like single member district elections with transfers (similar to UK 'first past the post' or the French Presidential).

Ok. The quota is 50% +1. With a turnout of 500,000, the winner is that who reaches 250,001 or more. Only one candidate can do this. There are no more than 500,000 total votes and (assuming all votes are transferable) if candidate A gets 250,001, candidate B can only reach 249,999 no matter in what order the other candidates are eliminated.

Eg. if Davis, Dana and Mithcell are eliminated first as in your example and the transfers put Gallagher over the quota, the remaining votes cannot together add up to more than the quota. If Gallagher reaches 250,001 (the least necessary to win), Higgins can only reach 249,999.

You seem to be confusing first and second preferences and their importance. As the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated their second preferences are counted and distributed accordingly. The first preferences of that candidate no longer apply, in essence the next preference 'moves up' to become the first preference in the next round.

You seem to think transfers have a 'multiplier' effect keeping their value for the original candidate while adding to another's. They don't, the first preference of an eliminated candidate is essentially undone and it now becomes a first preference for another candidate.

1stimpressions

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Firstly, the Presidential election is not a PR system because there is only one winner. PR and STV are not the same, they are two distinct parts of the Irish system. Presidential elections and by-elections are more like single member district elections with transfers (similar to UK 'first past the post' or the French Presidential).

Ok. The quota is 50% +1. With a turnout of 500,000, the winner is that who reaches 250,001 or more. Only one candidate can do this. There are no more than 500,000 total votes and (assuming all votes are transferable) if candidate A gets 250,001, candidate B can only reach 249,999 no matter in what order the other candidates are eliminated.

Eg. if Davis, Dana and Mithcell are eliminated first as in your example and the transfers put Gallagher over the quota, the remaining votes cannot together add up to more than the quota. If Gallagher reaches 250,001 (the least necessary to win), Higgins can only reach 249,999.

You seem to be confusing first and second preferences and their importance. As the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated their second preferences are counted and distributed accordingly. The first preferences of that candidate no longer apply, in essence the next preference 'moves up' to become the first preference in the next round.


You seem to think transfers have a 'multiplier' effect keeping their value for the original candidate while adding to another's. They don't, the first preference of an eliminated candidate is essentially undone and it now becomes a first preference for another candidate.

You are a patient person.

nesf

ArtSmart wrote: »

Ok. if all we were talking about were 1st pref votes what you say is true.

but we're not.

isn't the quota the total amount valid votes made divided by 2 (+ 1) = 50%? (+1)

So on that basis of first preferences alone, only one can win no matter when the vote is counted, as you say.

But with PR, that isnt the case. In that 2, 3rd, 4th etc preferences come into play.

and they are only counted as a candidate is eliminated.

I think that is where we're getting crossed wired.

either that, or I've lost it. finally.



50.—(1) The presidential returning officer, on receipt from every local returning officer of a notification under section 49 , shall ascertain from the notifications the total number of votes credited to each candidate and the total number of valid ballot papers.

(2) The presidential returning officer shall then divide the total number of valid ballot papers by 2 and the result increased by one, any fractional remainder being disregarded, shall be the number of votes sufficient to secure the election of a candidate. This number is referred to in this Act as “the quota”.

(3) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to a candidate is equal to or greater than the quota, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

(4) Where at the end of any count the number of votes credited to some one continuing candidate exceeds the total of all the votes credited to the other continuing candidates, that candidate shall be deemed to be elected and no further transfer of votes shall be made.

Think of it this way. If there are 100 votes, if 51 of them are for Gallagher, then the absolute most Higgins can get is 49. It doesn't matter what way the votes are counted, you still reach the same number. You can view each vote as being for either Higgins or Gallagher depending on which one gets a preference first. You can then treat them all as 1st Preferences in a two horse race for all intents and purposes when you are in the situation that two candidates are far ahead of the rest of the field.

The only time that order matters is if either Gallagher or Higgins are low on first preferences and can get eliminated before the big swell of second preferences comes for them. This is highly unlikely given how polling has gone.

With respect to the quota. If the ballot is 101 the quota is 51, the remainder 50. If it's 123456 the quota is 61729 and the remainder is 61727. And so on. You always end up with the quota being larger than the remainder. Always.

ArtSmart

Thanks to all. I feel like a complete idiot - of course 2,3,4 etc become 1. there is only a finite amount of votes. D'oh.

Got it now, thanks again.

(maths an me never really got on too well ,;))